If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse

FORUM POSTING RULES - Read before posting

Forum Rules.

(1) The guiding principle for posting in this forum is moderate yourselves.

(2) Don't write a post that attacks, impugns or denigrates another poster's character. There's an obvious difference between the language of humor and hateful, debased language. Know the difference and post accordingly.

(3) This is a Michigan sports forum. The forum welcomes posts from M's sports rivals. Talking smack, posting sass is what college sports rivalries are all about. Rules (1) and (2) above apply. If you don't want to view the posts of a rival talking smack or sassing, use the ignore feature in User Controls.

(4) This forum is about sharing thoughts, ideas and viewpoints about all sports, any number of subjects and issues, learning stuff from other posters and having fun. There are threads by subject matter within the forum for doing this. Keep the threads on point.

NB: The rules above are not intended to build a case to ban a poster. There are consequences for rule breaking as specified below. That's as far as it should go. Only the most egregious and persistent rule breaking would cause the moderators to consider a ban.

Due Process.

(1) The forum has 6 moderators. Jeff Buchanan, Jon, JD, Hannibal, Oracle, Entropy. None of them want to moderate adult posters who should know better. There may be posts that break the rules.

(2) Posters who, at the sole discretion of a moderator, break a rule will be given a warning post that will site one of the rules listed above as the reason for the deletion.

(3) If the rule breaking behavior continues, a moderator can remove an offending post and any ensuing post that whines about that action. If a moderator removes a post(s) the reason for the removal(s) will be posted with the removal notice that appears in the thread. This should be the end of it. Man up, take responsibility for breaking the rules. The forum moves on. If not, see below.

(4) A poster who has had a warning or a post(s) removed can certify a question by PM to any moderator about that action. Do not complain about the action or attempt to make your case in the forum/threads. Moderators shall do their best to address the question within 72h. At the end of 72h the majority opinion of the moderators responding will be the answer.

(5) Banning a poster for egregious and repeated rule breaking requires a unanimous vote to ban from all 6 moderators. We don't anticipate this will ever happen.

Thanks for the link Jeff. I think the $ 39.5 billion number was the gross take of Haliburton for its "services" during the Iraq war. And a lot of that was under contracts signed during the Clinton Administration. I have spent some time reading about Cheney before today, trying to get a handle on this level of hatred. When two posters here are arguing who was the first to call for killing Cheney, I consider that actual hatred.

As nearly as I can tell, the upper limit of money that Cheney received Haliburton was $ 34 Million, not $ 39.5 Billion. That is according to Chris Matthews. A lot of this comes from a thoroughly debunked Kerry ad in the 2004 election.

But the bigger point is that staffing an administration will always come down to a choice between hiring private-sector folks or public-sector folks. It is a choice between guys like Cheney or Tillerson and folks like Kerry or Donna Shalala. (Military leaders are a separate category since they are actually public sector employees who choose to do their job out of patriotism, and not for money).

In light of the 3 lawsuits against Trump that have been filed for violation of the Emoluments Clause, I think a reasonable person has to ask "did these contractual relations exist prior to the executive in question entering the political sphere?" From what I read, Comey would have been entitled to the $ 34 million whether or not he was elected the VP in 2000. Similarly, Trump Hotel in Washington would have spun off money to the Trump Organization if Donald had lost the election. I understand this "but for..." reasoning has logical flaws, but was Cheney's election and his alleged position on the Iraq War the reason for him getting the $ 34 m (and I'm sure you understand that number is in dispute)? I'd say, in large part, it was not. BTW, most of Cheney's income was from selling his stock options, and not from actual stock in Halliburton.

Top

Comment

Cheney quit Haliburton before taking office and received a generous severance package including stock options. At some point in 2004 or 2005 or something, he exercised the last of those options and donated the proceeds to charity. If you want to make a case against Cheney, there's more than enough actual facts to work with.

In any event, the $39.5B stuff is the demonstrably false rantings of unhinged progs like the Daily Kos.

Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.

Comment

"the people in entertainment and news are doing their best to feed the frenzy that led to yesterday"

I didn't know 2 signs in a cornfield qualified as entertainment.

I watched cnn and msnbc from 8-10 cst for few minutes here and there and they had guest after gues after guest after panel mesmerized on the breaking story--moeller investigates trump for obstruction of justice

the funny part of it is was in the first place when moeller was appointed was to investigate obstruction and coercion?
wasn't it prompted by comeys paranoia/preference to get one appointed for for just this reason?

now all of a sudden 2 networks dominate another 2 hours on the same thing that has been talked about for the last 5 months

BREAKING NEWS TRUMP BEING INVESTIGATED FOR OBSTRUCTIONB AND COERCION BY THE 11TH DIFFENT INVESTIGATION!@!!!!!!!!
lets have a panel of experts and talk about it for an hour. meanwhile a congressman is close to bleeding to death requiring numerous blood transfusions still not entirely control bleeding even after surgery- because somebody maybe influenced by griffin or snoop or Julius Caesar play--attempted to take fantasy and make it reality

but meanwhile

BREAKING NEWS---- THERE IS A POSSIBILITY TRUMP DID SOMETHING AND WE CAN INVESTIGATE IT!!!!!!!!!

Comment

"the people in entertainment and news are doing their best to feed the frenzy that led to yesterday"

I didn't know 2 signs in a cornfield qualified as entertainment.

I watched cnn and msnbc from 8-10 cst for few minutes here and there and they had guest after gues after guest after panel mesmerized on the breaking story--moeller investigates trump for obstruction of justice

the funny part of it is was in the first place when moeller was appointed was to investigate obstruction and coercion?
wasn't it prompted by comeys paranoia/preference to get one appointed for for just this reason?

now all of a sudden 2 networks dominate another 2 hours on the same thing that has been talked about for the last 5 months

BREAKING NEWS TRUMP BEING INVESTIGATED FOR OBSTRUCTIONB AND COERCION BY THE 11TH DIFFENT INVESTIGATION!@!!!!!!!!
lets have a panel of experts and talk about it for an hour. meanwhile a congressman is close to bleeding to death requiring numerous blood transfusions still not entirely control bleeding even after surgery- because somebody maybe influenced by griffin or snoop or Julius Caesar play--attempted to take fantasy and make it reality

but meanwhile

BREAKING NEWS---- THERE IS A POSSIBILITY TRUMP DID SOMETHING AND WE CAN INVESTIGATE IT!!!!!!!!!

I agree, the news channels should ignore the bombshell news about a sitting President being under investigation. #sounfair

Comment

I'm of the opinion that it's sometimes useful to correct blatant lies. It can be a full-time job around here given the bomb-throwing. So, I let most go. The $39.5B whopper I would have let go, too. I mean...LOL. But, I felt obliged after Geezer raised the issue.

This must be one of my "poorly worded" or "difficult to understand" statements:

If you want to make a case against Cheney, there's more than enough actual facts to work with.

Really have to work on my writing. Either that or laugh at those who can't read or, worse, want to deliberately lie about and/or slander you. The ends always justify the means. Prog Rule #1.

Comment

Laugh away. I'm of the opinion that when someone says "you're wrong but I'm not gonna exlpain why" on the Internet, as you have to me multiple times, usually that person is all bark/no bite. I don't think you are exactly that, but sometimes you geniunely are. So I don't care what you think of me. You're you. You should improve your behavior here, however. Your conduct is terrible.

Top

Comment

When someone throw bombs and blatant lies, they shouldn't be shocked when someone takes them task. Try to own your mistake and don't snowflake up...."waaa, he's bring so mean to me for, ummm, pointing out my lie. You're so mean and terrible!" LOL.

Comment

You should improve your behavior here. This community has suffered significantly and is much smaller because of you, and you show no appreciation at all for the people that backed you after your impassioned plea to return. Someone disagreeing with you is not a reason to have a tantrum. Asking for clarification is not horrible thing to have to do. Responding to a request for clarification isn't either. Grow up.

I'm here any time you want to back your bullshit on statutory law or whatever the hell else it is you think I know nothing of. I'm here to agree or disagree like gentlemen. If you can do that, we can discuss things. If you cannot, your can have your one-sided tantrum. Call me all the names you want to.

Top

Comment

LOL. Thats now multiple posts attacking me personally and I get accused of name-calling. LOL. Fortunately I take no offense. I will continue to shred dishonest posts and blatant lies. If someone wants to assert that Winston Churchill was POTUS, I'll take them to task. Whether they own the lie or snowflake up is on them.

I personally and very sincerely don't care if I ever have another discussion with hack again. I really can't over-emphasize the very sincerely part of that statement.

Comment

I don't think that was my position. I think my position was based on the facts known I didn't see an obstruction case. I believe I asked you to take the facts known and put them into the criminal code and make the case. I remain remarkably open to that argument if you should elect to make it. My position isn't immutable.

As for Mueller, if he unearths facts that show that DJT obstructed justice under 18 USC 1501 et al, then good for him. I'm skeptical that he will.

Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.